Utilization of the Caldwell, Henshaw, and Taylor (2005) Framework

Article: Perry, L., Lamont, S., Brunero, S., Gallagher, R. and Duffield, C., 2015. The mental health of nurses in acute teaching hospital settings: a cross-sectional survey. BMC nursing, 14(1), p.15.

The critiquing of article is important as it helps to evaluate the research to gather valuable knowledge regarding the study and develop better understanding of it. In this study, the Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor (2005) framework is to be used in reviewing the article by Perry et al. (2014) that is “The mental health of nurses in acute teaching hospital settings: a cross-sectional survey”. The framework is to be used as it provided systematic guidance regarding the way qualitative and quantitative articles are to be reviewed separately to present enhanced arguments and information regarding any study. Moreover, the framework is easier to be used by novice nursing students to understand and argue facts in the study (Caldwell et al., 2005).

The Caldwell et al. (2005) framework to review an article inform to initially identify if the title of the research effectively reflects the content in the study. This is because research title leads the reader to initially understand if the study is relevant to their topic of focus. Therefore, diversion of the content from the title meaning would lead the leaders to feel waste of time and the article being non-useful in meeting their requirement in study (Kavanaugh et al., 2018). In the study by Perry et al. (2014), the title of the research that is “The mental health of nurses in acute teaching hospital settings: a cross-sectional survey” is found to effectively reflect the content in the study. This is evident as the content explored and mentioned in detail about the mental health situation of the nurses in the acute teaching hospital settings. However, the title did not specifically mention which nature of nurses that is adult, child or mental health is focussed to evaluate their mental health condition. It leads the reader unable to understand from the title to determine if the study could be of use if they are focusing on any specific nature of nurse’s mental health condition to be evaluated.

The Caldwell et al. (2005) framework later mentions to identify if the authors who presented the study are credible. This is because incredible authors are considered to present inappropriate and error data that hinders the accomplish of the study scientifically and logically (Leijten et al., 2018). The authors in the study by Perry et al. (2014) are credible as each of them are found to be faculty of the health in the University of Technology Sydney indicating they have adequate knowledge and skill to explore health-related topic to establish credible research with effective scientifically approved information. The framework by Caldwell et al. (2005) mentions identifying if the study has mentioned detailed aim and presented a rationale of the research. This is because aim indicates the knowledge and understanding to be received from the study, in turn, making the reader become clarified whether or not the study could be used for their intended research purpose (Moore and Kawachi, 2017). The rationale of study explains the reason behind execution of the study (Moore and Kawachi, 2017).

In the study by Perry et al. (2014), a clarified aim is seen to be presented. This is evident as the study mentioned that the aim is to determine the mental health status of the nurses who are working in the metropolitan tertiary referral hospital located in Sydney, Australia. However, a well-defined rationale is not present in the study due to which the fundamental reason behind the focus of the topic and its importance in the nursing field could not be explored. The mentioned literature review in Perry et al. (2014) contains comprehensive information along with updated data. This is because all the information presented in the literature review closely informs to what extent nursing is an emotionally exhaustive job and the mental health issues commonly found among nurses as a result of their work pressure. Moreover, most of data presented in the literature review are from the articles that are published between 2004-2014 which indicate that most of the data are taken from the past 10 years only that are currently published according to scientific experimentation and result.

The use of comprehensive and updated data in the literature review in healthcare study is important it provides opportunity to the experienced and inexperienced in the healthcare field to develop easy understanding regarding the topic as all the aspect are explained in a meaningful and concise manner (Hutchings et al., 2020). The comprehensive data is essential in the study as it reduce uncertainty towards data use from the exiting study to achieve a long-term goal. Moreover. comprehensive data are less redundant and lower need for transformation of data for research (Cooper et al., 2018). The Caldwell et al. (2005) framework informs that in reviewing the article an assessment is to be made to ensure the ethical issues are identified and addressed in the study. This is because ethically approved studies are considered to contain true data and knowledge along with ensure presenting data that are free from error (McKenna and Gray, 2018).

In the study by Perry et al. (2014), the authors mentioned the way they accessed ethical approval and in which aspects in a small section. However, it is found to be comprehensive and the authors in the study are found to gather ethical approval from the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee for the study. The committee has the mission to ensure protection of dignity and rights along with welfare and safety of the participants in the research to facilitate good research data (seslhd, 2019). The informed consent and confidentiality are the two key ethical aspects to be considered and focused on the study. This is because informed consent mentions that participants are aware of their reason behind participation in the research and their confidentiality ensure safety in the public (Campbell et al., 2017). In the study by Perry et al. (2014), confidentiality as well as informed consent is followed. This is evident as no name or identify of the participants are revealed or used under any condition in the study. Moreover, it is mentioned that all the participants in the study were provided with written information that explained them about the project and offered them to opportunity to raise question to a local researcher of the research team to understand their involvement and any other data regarding the study (Perry et al., 2014).

The authors in the study have mentioned that they are using descriptive methodology and conducting a physical survey of the participants to gather data (Perry et al., 2014). The advantage of using descriptive methodology for the study is that it develops possibility for observing phenomenon in a completely natural as well as unchanged environment leading to gather data in its true form. Moreover, the other advantage is that it is less time consuming compared to the experimental methodology used in framing quantitative studies (Mohesh et al., 2018). Thus, the use of descriptive methodology is strength of the study as it led to gather data from the natural surroundings. The study involved using survey is presenting the descriptive data in the research which has both strength and limitation to be included in the study. The strength of survey method is that it is cost-effective along with leads data to gathered that are high in generalization capability towards representing a larger population. Moreover, statistical significance of the data in the survey helps to present the credibility of the data and amount of error in true form (Vives et al., 2020). However, the limitation with using survey method is that may not create opportunity for the respondents to provide accurate and honest answers due to objectivity in the study (Sibbald et al., 2019).

The Caldwell et al. (2005) in critiquing a quantitative study mentions to identify the study design used and its justification in the study. The study by Perry et al. (2014) mentioned that they have used cross-section study deign in formulating the study. The cross-section study design is one which is used to gather information on the basis of collected data for a certain point of time. The data gathered in this study design are from a pool of participants with varied demographics and characteristics (Perry et al., 2014). In the current study, data is gathered regarding the participants on the basis of various characteristics such as sleep pattern, physical activity level, mental capacity and other to understand the nurse’s mental health condition. The strength of using cross-sectional study design is that it helps to provide adequate information in proving or disapproving assumptions in the study. Moreover, it is cost-effective and time-saving along with allows capturing data at a particular point of time to compare the data in determining the extent of change that has occurred on the data overtime (von Rosen et al., 2017).

The other strength of using cross-section design in this study is that it helped the collection of data in the study that can used in variety of research and allows wider findings to be made for creating new theories out of the data (von Rosen et al., 2017). However, the limitation of using cross-sectional study is that it is unable to be used in analysing the behaviour of a participant for a certain time period (Alimohammadian et al., 2017). Thus, the study design cannot be used in determining the overall behaviour changes occurred in the nurses as a result of their deteriorated mental health caused out of work pressure or environment or responsibility. The other limitation with cross-sectional study design is that it does not allow to determine cause and effect relationship along with present findings that could be flawed and contains conflict of interest (Alimohammadian et al., 2017). However, in the study the authors clearly mentioned they did not suffer any conflict of interest which ensure this aspect of the limitation with cross-section study design is not faced in the study.

In the study by Perry et al. (2014), no experimental hypothesis or key variables used in the study are explained by the authors. The information of hypothesis or key variables in the study is required to be presented so that the basis of the entire research can be well-identified. The sample in the study by Peery et al. (2014) is described effectively. This is evident as the nature of nurses included in the study that are registered nurses (RNs) and Enrolled Nurses (ENs) are mentioned to be included in the study. Moreover, the total sample that is 1270 RNs and 232 ENs where mentioned to be respectively included in the study with 1215 nurses been finally involved in the study as others were not available because they were on leave during the study period. However, the authors did not mention whether the mentioned sample in the study is reflective of the population. Thus, it could not be determined if the mentioned sample represents the nurse population as whole.

The data collection method used in the study is survey and they used survey information statements along with letter of invitation to the participants to remind them to involve in the survey which was provided through email. The strength of using survey method is that it is cost-effective, les time consuming and ensure easy generalisation of results. However, the weakness is that detailed emotions and feelings of the participants are unable to be determined to understand true meaning of the data collected (Steffl et al., 2017). The data collection was mentioned to be performed for four months in the 2011-12 at two different sites. The data collection made in the study is done in a valid and reliable way which is evident as extensive reliability and validity tools are used in gathering data for various characteristics determined for the study. The study by Perry et al. (2014) used Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) in analysing the data which is approved for Window Version 21. This indicates that most current software is used in analysing the data and determine it is reliability. Since SPSS provides most reliable data to be gathered, therefore its use is beneficial for the study (Abbott, 2016). The level significance in the study results in the current research is set at 0.05. This indicates that in 5% risk of considering the data may not be true is accepted in turn expressing high reliability of true data to be collected in the study.

The results presented in Perry et al. (2014) is clear and appropriate. This is evident as four themes are presented within which raw data of survey is listed that is strong point. The results are seen to be valid and plausible and represents a greater population. The discussion presented in the study is found to be comprehensive and presented in robust manner. The discussion is accurately detailed, and arguments are supported by using valid literature which strengthen the validity of the discussion as it ensures approval with high level of evidence. Moreover, the limitation of the study is effectively acknowledged by the authors which includes low response rate and consideration of the age of the participants more than average national sample. This may impact to crate hindrance in making generalisation of the results. The study indicated that use of self-reported measures may have led the participants to thought are right opposed to the truth which may have led to create error in the study.

The conclusion in the study is clarified and implication of the study in the healthcare field is also identified. The conclusion mentioned that the managers are to thrive in framing a workplace that promote mental health and well-being of the nurses. They are at least required to configure minimum deteriorated effects in which both the manager and nurses are aware of the potential impact of mental health on the workforce and feel free to discuss regarding it without the fear of stigma. The assignment aimed to critique the article by use of Caldwell framework which led to gather overall crucial information regarding the study.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Using Gibbs Reflective Cycle.

References

Abbott, M.L., 2016. Using statistics in the social and health sciences with SPSS and excel. John Wiley & Sons.

Agarwal, R., Jain, P., Ghosh, M.S. and Parihar, K.S., 2017. Importance of primary health care in the society. International journal of health sciences, 1(1), pp.6-11.

Alimohammadian, M., Majidi, A., Yaseri, M., Ahmadi, B., Islami, F., Derakhshan, M., Delavari, A., Amani, M., Feyz-Sani, A., Poustchi, H. and Pourshams, A., 2017. Multimorbidity as an important issue among women: results of a gender difference investigation in a large population-based cross-sectional study in West Asia. BMJ open, 7(5), p.e013548.

Campbell, M.M., Susser, E., Mall, S., Mqulwana, S.G., Mndini, M.M., Ntola, O.A., Nagdee, M., Zingela, Z., Van Wyk, S. and Stein, D.J., 2017. Using iterative learning to improve understanding during the informed consent process in a South African psychiatric genomics study. PLoS One, 12(11), p.e0188466.

Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N. and Garside, R., 2018. Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), p.85.

Hutchings, E., Loomes, M., Butow, P. and Boyle, F.M., 2020. A systematic literature review of health consumer attitudes towards secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data: a focus on privacy, trust, and transparency. Systematic Reviews, 9(1), pp.1-41.

Kavanaugh, M.L., Zolna, M.R. and Burke, K.L., 2018. Use of health insurance among clients seeking contraceptive services at Title X–funded facilities in 2016. Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 50(3), pp.101-109.

Leijten, P., Gardner, F., Landau, S., Harris, V., Mann, J., Hutchings, J., Beecham, J., Bonin, E.M. and Scott, S., 2018. Research Review: Harnessing the power of individual participant data in a meta‐analysis of the benefits and harms of the Incredible Years parenting program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(2), pp.99-109.

McKenna, L. and Gray, R., 2018. The importance of ethics in research publications. Collegian, 25(2), pp.147-148.

Mohesh, G., Murugappan, S. and Meerasa, S.S., 2018. A Cross-sectional Descriptive Study to Assess the Knowledge, Attitude and Practices towards Voluntary Participation in Health Research among the Medical Undergraduate Students. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Physiology, 5(3), pp.151-155.

Moore, S. and Kawachi, I., 2017. Twenty years of social capital and health research: a glossary. J Epidemiol Community Health, 71(5), pp.513-517.

Perry, L., Lamont, S., Brunero, S., Gallagher, R. and Duffield, C., 2015. The mental health of nurses in acute teaching hospital settings: a cross-sectional survey. BMC nursing, 14(1), p.15.

seslhd 2019, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee, Available at: https://www.seslhd.health.nsw.gov.au/services-clinics/directory/research-home/ethics [Accessed on: 30 December 2020]

Sibbald, S.L., Kang, H. and Graham, I.D., 2019. Collaborative health research partnerships: a survey of researcher and knowledge-user attitudes and perceptions. Health Research Policy and Systems, 17(1), p.92.

Steffl, M., Sima, J., Shiells, K. and Holmerova, I., 2017. The increase in health care costs associated with muscle weakness in older people without long-term illnesses in the Czech Republic: results from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Clinical Interventions in Aging, 12, p.2003.

Vives, A., Benmarhnia, T., González, F. and Benach, J., 2020. The importance of using a multi-dimensional scale to capture the various impacts of precarious employment on health: results from a national survey of Chilean workers. PloS one, 15(9), p.e0238401.

von Rosen, A.J., von Rosen, F.T., Tinnemann, P. and Müller-Riemenschneider, F., 2017. Sexual health and the internet: cross-sectional study of online preferences among adolescents. Journal of medical Internet research, 19(11), p.e379.